On Wed, 2006-08-11 at 13:18 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 08 November 2006 13:06, Andrew Overholt wrote: > > Perhaps. Our group doesn't have the time or peoplepower to do this, > > though. Perhaps the various attempts at writing these plugins will pan > > out. > > Code doesn't just have to come from your group (: I didn't mean to imply that. I meant that I'm not terribly interested in committing to working on a "Fedora Maintainer" plugin if it doesn't work with stuff we have in the distro. > > > Many upstream > > > projects are transitioning to either git, or hg because of the > > > distributedness of it, something you can't get from CVS or SVN. > > > > I don't personally see the need for the distributedness when it comes to > > Fedora packaging stuff. But perhaps I'm missing something. > > Nope, you're not missing anything. Eclipse plugins for git or hg would have > far more usefullness than just for Fedora's packaging stuff. Many other > developers for other upstream projects could take advantage of such plugins. Of course. I've said for a while now that I'd like to see someone work on those but it's just not a priority internally. I was more interested in hearing why a distributed VCS was important for Fedora packaging. Daniel's comments illustrate a few benefits but I don't _personally_ see how these are that important for this application. Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
